HC recalls order on poll rolls
Haryana civic poll by Jan 15
By Yoginder Gupta
Tribune News Service

CHANDIGARH, Dec 10 — With the Punjab and Haryana High Court recalling its order by virtue of which the panchayat and municipal elections in Haryana had been postponed, it has now become a constitutional obligation on the part of the state government and the State Election Commission (SEC) to conduct these elections before January 15 when the term of the existing bodies expires.

With this, the state government’s plans, if any, to go in for an early Assembly elections seem to have been jeopardised.

Two residents of Ambala district had moved the High Court seeking directions that the elections to the panchayats of two villages in the district should be held on the basis of the final Assembly electoral rolls published on July 21, 1994 instead of the rolls prepared by the SEC.

A Division Bench comprising Mr Justice H.S. Bedi and Mr Justice A.S. Garg issued an order on September 30 after recording a statement by the then Advocate-General of Haryana, Mr Mohan Jain, that the SEC should revise the electoral rolls of the panchayats and the municipal committees as per the final Assembly rolls published on July 21, 1999, before June, 2000. By virtue of this order, the panchayat and municipal elections scheduled for 1999 were postponed.

A Haryana Congress MLA, Mr Randeep Surjewala, filed an application on behalf of the Haryana Congress Legislature Party, its leader, Mrs Kartar Devi, and others besides himself, urging the court that the applicants be impleaded in the case and the order of September 30 reviewed.

Mr Surjewala alleged that the petition had been filed in collusion with the ruling party and the court had been kept in the dark about the constitutional provisions.

In a strongly worded order, Mr Justice Bedi and Mr Justice Garg said on December 3 that “It is agreed between counsels representing the applicants as also the SEC, Mr Ashok Aggarwal, and the incumbent Advocate-General, Mr M.L. Sarin, that the order dated September 30, 1999, has been passed in ignorance of the constitutional provisions given in Part IX and Part IX-A and in the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, and has in fact, had the effect of negating these provisions by postponing the elections to the panchayats and the local bodies”.

Allowing the application of Mr Surjewala, the court impleaded that applicants as respondents in the writ petition and recalled its order of September 30, 1999.

While dismissing the writ petition, the Judges issued notice for December 16 to Mr T.D. Jogpal, State Election Commissioner, the Chief Secretary, Haryana, Mr R.S. Varma, and Mr Jain to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for “deliberately misleading” the court.

They also ordered that the official records of the SEC relating to the matter should be kept in the court under a sealed cover.

In its order of September 30 the court had recorded that “the Advocate-General (Mr Jain) stated that in the facts and circumstances of the case it would be appropriate that the voters list finalised for the panchayat and municipal elections is revised on the basis of the Assembly electoral rolls finally published on July 21, 1999, and the same be prepared after affording an opportunity of hearing to all eligible voters after following the prescribed procedure”.

During arguments on Mr Surjewala’s application, Mr Sarin, A.G., Haryana, stated that the government was unaware of the statement made by Mr Jain. However, the court found Mr Sarin’s contention as “difficult to accept” and observed that “the state cannot be permitted to shirk its responsibility in this manner and to disown a statement made by its Advocate-General.

The court also observed that in view of the affidavit of Mr Rajan Gupta (who was earlier representing the SEC and had been superseded) and the facts “that have come out in the course of hearing, it appears that the respondent state represented by the former A.G. and the SEC have deliberately withheld the correct legal position from the court.”

Interestingly, Mr R.R. Jowel, Director, Panchayats, in his reply on behalf of the state to Mr Surjewala’s application took a stand contrary to that taken by Mr Sarin. Mr Jowel wrote in his reply that “considering the facts that draft Assembly electoral rolls cannot become the basis for voters list for the election of Panchayati Raj institutions, the statement was made by the learned Advocate-General of Haryana with regard to revision of electoral rolls for holding elections to these institutions.”

Mr Jowel’s reply was filed on November 26, while Mr Jain had resigned as the Advocate-General on November 19, 1999.